Service connection for a cervical spine disorder is denied.

Citation Nr: A26069979 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 220512-243883 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER Service connection for a cervical spine disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from November 1984 to March 1985 and October 1986 to January 1997; he has been 100 percent disabled based on unemployability since May 2024 and on a schedular basis since May 2025. 2. A cervical spine disorder, diagnosed a left cervical radiculopathy and degenerative changes, was not shown in service, was not shown to a compensable degree within one year of service, symptoms were not continuous since service, and a cervical spine disorder is not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A cervical spine disorder was not incurred in service or is not presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2026). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION This decision has been written under the guidelines of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In April 2022, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the claim. In May 2022, the Veteran appealed to the Board via a Form 10182 and elected the Hearing docket. The Veteran failed to report for the hearing, which was scheduled for November 24, 2025, and did not provide good cause for such failure or request the hearing be rescheduled. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). Accordingly, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted within 90 days following the scheduled hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(c). The Veteran claims service connection for a neck disorder, including arthritis, due to carrying heavy ruck sacks and marching long distances with it on. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service based on a nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309, including arthritis, under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. The April 2022 decision on appeal found that the Veteran had been diagnosed with a disorder because private treatment records show a diagnosis of left cervical radiculopathy. The Board is bound by this favorable finding, such that the first element of service connection, a current disability is met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). As to an inservice incurrence, VA has been unable to obtain the complete service treatment records (STRs) from the Veteran's first period of service and they are unavailable for review. As such, the Board has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and to carefully consider the benefit of the doubt rule. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). However, the threshold for allowance of a claim is not lowered and the need for probative medical nexus evidence causally relating the current disability at issue to service is not eliminated; rather, the Board's obligation to discuss and evaluate evidence is heightened. Russo v. Brown,9 Vet. App. 46 (1996). A May 1996 private treatment record shows the Veteran reported having sustained a back injury while serving in Germany in 1987 and having reinjured himself in February 1995, after driving. In consideration of the guidance from the Court in O'Hare and resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds he sustained injury in service, consistent with his reported 1987 back injury and carrying heavy ruck sacks during long distance marches. As such, the second element of service connection is met. Regarding medical nexus, the Veteran does not claim a cervical spine disorder manifested during service or that arthritis manifested within a year of service. Indeed, review of the record does not show that he was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy until October 2021 or found to have X-ray evidence of degenerative changes of the cervical spine until November 2021, approximately 24 years after separation from service. Specifically, an April 1997 VA general medical examination report, in connection with the service-connected lumbar spine disorder, shows evaluation of the neck was normal. The evidence also includes private treatment records which show that the Veteran sought treatment for left shoulder pain in May 2021. He reported having sustained a left shoulder injury and being told he had a rotator cuff tear in 2006. After undergoing benign left shoulder arthroscopy with debridement and decompression in June 2021, he continued to experience pain and reported "longstanding low back and neck issues" on followup evaluation in October 2021. The examiner suspected cervical radiculopathy as being the root cause of the Veteran's problem. November 2021 X-ray study of the cervical spine showed mild multilevel degenerative changes, most pronounced at C6-C7. As such, the record shows cervical radiculopathy was not manifested in service, degenerative changes of the cervical spine did not manifest to a compensable degree within a presumptive period, and cervical spine complaints were not noted in service with attributable continuity of symptomatology. The Veteran was not diagnosed with a cervical spine disorder until decades after separation from service, and decades outside of the applicable presumptive period. The Veteran has presented no competent evidence suggesting a link between his cervical spine disorder and the injury in service and no medical professional has otherwise established such a connection. The Board has considered the Veteran's lay assertion that his neck condition is due to carrying and marching long distances with heavy ruck sacks. Although he is competent to report observable symptoms, as a layperson, he is not competent to provide an opinion as to the etiology of a disability. Specialized medical training and expertise are required to render an etiology opinion. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, the Board cannot assign any probative weight to the Veteran's assertion. The Board also recognizes that VA did not seek a medical opinion concerning the cervical spine disorder but finds no pre-decisional duty to assist error in this regard. At the time of the decision on appeal, there was no competent evidence suggesting a cervical spine disorder may be associated with an established event, injury, or disease in service. Thus, even the "low threshold" standard of McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006) was not met at the AOJ level, and an examination was not warranted. Under AMA, the duty to assist does not attach at the Board review level, and therefore, no further development may be ordered by the Board at this time. Generalized lay allegations are not sufficient to meet the McLendon standard, even though medical evidence is not necessarily required. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1276 (2010). Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K Hughes, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.